Madhu Sameer v. the Right Move 4 U ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 13 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MADHU SAMEER, No. 18-16046
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:17-cv-00886-AWI-EPG
v.
MEMORANDUM*
THE RIGHT MOVE 4 U; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 11, 2019**
Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Madhu Sameer appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
her action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 41(b). McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996). We affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Sameer’s action
for failure to comply with its order to amend the complaint to comply with Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Despite the district court’s warning and instruction,
Sameer’s third amended complaint was vague, confusing, and failed to allege
clearly the bases for her claims. See id. at 1179-80 (affirming dismissal of a
complaint under Rule 8 because it was “argumentative, prolix, replete with
redundancy, and largely irrelevant”); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (requiring that
a pleading contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Sameer’s motion to
proceed in forma pauperis because the court’s determination was based on its
examination of her affidavit in support of her motion and her financial resources.
See O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1990) (setting forth standard of
review and explaining that a “reviewing court cannot reverse unless it has a
definite and firm conviction that the court below committed a clear error of
judgment”).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
2 18-16046
Sameer’s motions requesting this court to take judicial notice of the
documents she attaches (Docket Entry Nos. 24 and 68) are denied because the
documents are irrelevant to the issues on appeal. The Clerk is directed to strike the
documents. Her motions requesting to file those documents under seal (Docket
Entry Nos. 23 and 68) are denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
3 18-16046